Comment on Dissenting Views

Wed, 27 May 2009 18:34:29 GMT

Really? All self-described teachers of practical arts have the comfort of systematized winning?

I said "for all that" is not "for all of". Very different meaning. "For all that" means something like "despite the fact that", or "Although". I.e., "although the teachers of practical arts are often deluded, they at least have the comfort of systematized winning." What's more, it's you who said "self-described" -- I referred only to people who have some systematized winning.

There are no snake-oil charlatans for whom things just "went well" and are now out to capitalize on it? How can we tell the difference?

See, that's the sort of connotation I find interesting. How is "snake oil charlatan" connected to having things go well and wanting to capitalize on it? Would you want to be taught by someone who didn't have things go well for them? And if they didn't want to capitalize on it in some fashion, why would they be teaching it? (Even if the only capitalization taking place is that they enjoy teaching!)

If you break down what you've just said, it should be easy to see why I think this sort of "thinking" is just irrationally-motivated reaction - the firing off "boo" lights in response to certain buttons being pushed.

To adopt a given useful-but-otherwise-arbitrary belief U, I first need a true belief T that U is useful. Your position seems to be that U trumps T because of its intrinsic usefulness.

No - I'm saying that the simplest way to assess belief U is to try acting as if it were true. In fact, the ONLY way to assess the usefulness of U is to have one or more persons act as if it were true. Because without that, you aren't really testing U, you're testing U+X, where X is whatever else it is you believe about U, like, "I'm going to see if this works", or "I think this is stupid".

Good epistemic hygiene in testing the usefulness of a belief requires that you not contaminate your test chamber with other beliefs.

Now, that may sound like a defense of psychic phenomena. But it isn't. You don't need an absence of skepticism from the overall proceedings, only a temporary absence of skepticism in the performer.

And the measurement of the performer's results can be as objective and skeptical as you like. (Although, for processes whose intent is also subjective -- i.e., to make you feel better about life or be more motivated -- then only the subjective experiencer can measure that bit, of course.)

Sometimes, I get clients who will say something like, "Well, I felt better, but how do I know I wasn't just imagining it?", and I have to separate out the confusion. Because what they're really saying is, "At time X I felt good, but now at time Y I'm thinking that maybe it wasn't real".

However, if the experiment was "perform procedure Z at time X-1" with a prediction that this will result in a positive experience at time X, then procedure Z worked. And retroactively questioning it is only making you feel bad now -- it can't change how you felt at time X, although it can reconsolidate your memory so it seems like you felt worse at time X.

In other words, it's questioning yourself afterwards that's poor epistemic hygiene, because it actually alters your memories. (See all those studies about how asking people leading questions alters their memories.)

This "success at time X, questioning at time Y" pattern is really common among naturally-struggling people. It's basically the way people prevent themselves from advancing. And it doesn't matter what procedure Z is - it could be something like making a plan for their day. I'll ask, "well, did you make a plan?" And they'll be like, "well, yeah, but what if I didn't do it right?"

It's this process of self-questioning that directly results in the problems. If you want to develop skill at something, you can't tinker with your success criteria after the fact, to make it so that you failed anyway.

Skepticism is useful before you do something, to set up the criteria for measuring something. But it's not useful while you're doing the thing, nor after you've actually done it.

The irrational fear I keep talking about here is people being attached to the idea that if they refrain from self-questioning of this type, that they will suddenly become delusional theists or something. Which is really ironic, because in the type of situation I'm describing it's the questioning that creates the delusion, redefining the past to suit the whims of the present.

Discuss